9.1. The Modal syntax, PRESENT or PAST

We cannot really tell the notional or psychological time by the hour, especially for Modal verbs. What strategy can we develop, to tackle Modal verbs? We can use syntax. Our syntactic expansion is underlined. Our

PROBABILITY ― getting to the PAST time extent

38. Where is the handle? It MAYhavebrokenoff.

38. It CANhavebrokenoff.

38a. It MIGHThavebrokenoff.

39a. It COULDhavebrokenoff.

Psychologically, we can refer all these forms to the PRESENT: our theory can be the handle hasbroken off — maybe. The Modal form only would tell how strong we feel about the theory. We expressed probability in cubes in chapter 9: the more cubes, the more certainty we express.

The handle CAN havebrokenoff.

The handle COULD havebrokenoff.

The handle MAY havebrokenoff.

The handle MIGHT havebrokenoff.

Flow of time happens to have a generalizing effect. For our psychological PAST, we would be more likely to say,

The handle COULD havebrokenoff.

The handle MIGHT havebrokenoff.

*****

Some grammars exclude the verbal “can have done” from advisable forms and encourage “may have done”, for proper style. “Can have done” yet has considerable occurrence in contemporary American English. Languages change. A few hundred years ago, people happened to say “thou” or “thee”, where we say “you” in the singular today. Who knows how American English evolves? Some time ago, saying “you” was potentially bad English (!)

*****

Brain logic is not a form of address and it cannot depend on grammarian resolves. To decide if a syntactic strategy could help manage Modal verbs, let us think about natural language learning.

At some stage, children may show relativity in interpreting language. We could think about an utterance as “Jill promised Jim to smile”. If we ask a child to draw a smile on either Jill’s picture or Jim’s picture, the child may draw the smile on Jim’s picture.

At the very same stage of language progression, children may have no problems with language structures as the Passive: it might be not the Infinitive itself to be the trouble. Could the matter be in imminent tactics for auxiliary time? Please consider the following idea independently.

We can use virtual lexical items, to focus on syntax. A lexical item is a word or a phrase we perceive for a unit of meaning, as “to take care”, for example. A virtual lexical item has no meaning. It is just to fill a place in syntax and help learn (see the color code). We could think about a pattern as,

40. Iremember to bimo.

We also can think about a pattern as,

40a. Iremember tohavebimoed.

Example 40 says we remember to do something, for example, we remember to brush our teeth every day. Example 40a says we are recalling something prior, antecedent.

The antecedent reference for time always would relate to the main or head time, whether the time would be PAST, PRESENT, or FUTURE. Let us use a real verb, to learn.

Main time: the PRESENT
I REMEMBER to havelearned;

Main time: the FUTURE
I WILLREMEMBER to havelearned;

Main time: the PAST
I REMEMBERED to havelearned.

Would the auxiliary HAVE make antecedent time extents generally?

Saying we havelearned, we say we began learning some time before speaking about it. Saying we may havelearned, we make the learning a bit of a theory, but still, the theory would be that learning began some time before speaking about it.

To focus on the main time, let us compare CERTAINTY in the PAST time extent.

CERTAINTY ― the PAST time extent

If we put WILL to its PAST form, we may change the language register, not the reference in time.

42. These handles always WOULDbreakoff.
(The time compass is the PAST or PRESENT.)

Let us mind that American English uses Modal verbs extensively, for good style. The form “WOULD” does not have to imply doubt. We could see the person at the door and hear or say,“Would this be Jim?”

We can try our good companion, the auxiliary HAVE.
42a. These handles always WOULD HAVEbroken off.
(We can refer to a PAST time.)

47. You SHOULD havetakencare of the handle.
You OUGHT TO havetakencare of the handle.

48. You NEEDED TOtakecare of the handle.

Let us now think about main time syntactically, taking the entire utterance into account.

41. Where is the handle? It MAY HAVE / CAN HAVEbroken off.
(Finding the handle is much of an open question.)

Would oranges have handles?

41a. Ithought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(Finding the handle was not much of an open question, in the case.)

Let us focus on the Modal form alone.

41b. The handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(Finding the handle ISNOT or WASNOT much of an open question.)

The Modal form alone does not give enough guidance. We have to seek clues in our cognitive grounds. Cognitively, it can take real time to make a hypothesis, but hypothetical time never can be the same as real time. To shape up a good idea for head time and Modal verbs, we can venture time frames.

Posts by email

Recent Posts: Teresa Pelka

I have never interpreted the Great Seal Novus Ordo Seclorum as a New Order of the Ages. I realized my comprehension was different from the official, over the Internet. With Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence at my side, I will try to defend my view: the Seal says a new nation has become.

In most simple terms, philology is a study of words. Words that get to be spoken, words that get to be written, words as they happen to become human thinking matter. Words in texts old and words in texts new: if you think about this profession, you need to be fond of words.

Human brains need to be live structures for grammar, and these have simultaneous processes. When we use the Present Simple, our paths for the Perfect Progressive for example do not become “switched off”. Are there really “stative verbs”?